The fact that we don't know why is a clue pointing at some area of math that we haven't discovered yet. The hope is always that it will uncover some hidden fertile valley that will lead to lots of new discoveries. But the proof of the conjecture itself, without understanding, is really not that valuable.
My point is that even if AI discovers many new truths, there's still plenty to do for the mathematical community, in dissecting it and building useful abstractions to understand it, abstractions that can be leveraged for further exploration and uncovering new questions.
That already happened before AI.
> 2. Frontier mathematics will all be kept secret
Gauss kept lots of frontier mathematics in his drawer. In the 20th centuries government spy agencies developed public key cryptography long before that was known to the public. To give just two examples.
It's not the end of the world.
And what do you care, if someone keeps frontier mathematics a secret, if you can ask DeepSeek version 10 in 2030 to prove the Riemann hypothesis for you?
About 4-6 years earlier, depending what you want to count, although the inventors may also have been less clear on its importance or applications compared to the later public inventors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography#Classi...
I guess that's kind of a long time in computer technology terms.
1. People will publish AI generated frontier math making it difficult to identify frontier mathematicians. 2. Trained frontier mathematicians will become scarce
" The National Security Agency is the largest employer of mathematicians in the U.S. "
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mathematicians-an...
Which makes total sense unlike the "too much frontier math" nonsense.
Which groups are those?
If you are good at it, end result is that minority can keep majority of the seats and power. So, as there are two parties, the groups are "likely to voted republicans" and "likely to vote democrats".